What do you think?
Rate this book
Guenevere #1
Guenevere, Queen of the Summer Country
Last in a line of proud queens elected to rule the fertile lands of the West, true owner of the legendary Round Table, guardian of the Great Goddess herself . . . a woman whose story has never been told -- until now.
Raised in the tranquil beauty of the Summer Country, Princess Guenevere has led a charmed and contented life -- until the sudden, violent death of her mother, Queen Maire, leaves the Summer Country teetering on the brink of anarchy. Only the miraculous arrival of Arthur, heir to the Pendragon dynasty, allows Guenevere to claim her mother's throne. Smitten by the bold, sensuous princess, Arthur offers to marry her and unite their territories, allowing her to continue to reign in her own right. Their love match creates the largest and most powerful kingdom in the Isles. Yet even the glories of Camelot are not safe from the shadows of evil and revenge. Arthur is reunited with his long-lost half-sisters, Morgause and Morgan, princesses torn from their mother and their ancestral right by Arthur's father, the brutal and unscrupulous King Uther. Both daughters will avenge their suffering, but it is Morgan who strikes the deadliest blows, using her enchantments to destroy all Guenevere holds dear and to force Arthur to betray his Queen.
In the chaos that follows, Arthur dispatches a new knight to Guenevere, the young French prince Lancelot, never knowing that Lancelot's passion for the Queen, and hers for him, may be the love that spells ruin for Camelot.
Raised in the tranquil beauty of the Summer Country, Princess Guenevere has led a charmed and contented life -- until the sudden, violent death of her mother, Queen Maire, leaves the Summer Country teetering on the brink of anarchy. Only the miraculous arrival of Arthur, heir to the Pendragon dynasty, allows Guenevere to claim her mother's throne. Smitten by the bold, sensuous princess, Arthur offers to marry her and unite their territories, allowing her to continue to reign in her own right. Their love match creates the largest and most powerful kingdom in the Isles. Yet even the glories of Camelot are not safe from the shadows of evil and revenge. Arthur is reunited with his long-lost half-sisters, Morgause and Morgan, princesses torn from their mother and their ancestral right by Arthur's father, the brutal and unscrupulous King Uther. Both daughters will avenge their suffering, but it is Morgan who strikes the deadliest blows, using her enchantments to destroy all Guenevere holds dear and to force Arthur to betray his Queen.
In the chaos that follows, Arthur dispatches a new knight to Guenevere, the young French prince Lancelot, never knowing that Lancelot's passion for the Queen, and hers for him, may be the love that spells ruin for Camelot.
544 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1999
120 people are currently reading
5344 people want to read
About the author
Rosalind Miles
68 books427 followersRosalind Miles is an author born and raised in England and now living in both Los Angeles and Kent, England. She has written both works of fiction and non-fiction. As a child, Miles suffered from polio, and had to undergo several months of treatment. After being accepted to a junior women's college, Miles acquired a working knowledge of Latin and Greek, along with developing her life-long love of Shakespeare. At seventeen, she was promoted to St. Hilda's College, Oxford where she studied English literature, Anglo-Saxon, Middle English, Latin and French. She obtained five degrees in all, ending with a Ph.D. from the Shakespeare Institute at the University of Birmingham.
Miles later on became interested in jurisprudence, which resulted in her sitting as a lay magistrate in the English criminal and family courts, and eventually on the bench in a superior court in Coventry. She is also a regular commentator on the BBC, on Canadian Radio, and in The Times.
Miles later on became interested in jurisprudence, which resulted in her sitting as a lay magistrate in the English criminal and family courts, and eventually on the bench in a superior court in Coventry. She is also a regular commentator on the BBC, on Canadian Radio, and in The Times.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 254 reviews
November 9, 2014
Wow, I hated this book. Now, I don't know TOO much about Arthurian legend, but I know enough to know what needs to be known, and from what I've learned I was intrigued by it. I thought this book would further propel me into the legend...I thought wrong.
I found the characters to be disgusting. Merlin was portrayed as a crazy, sex-obsessed old man, and Arthur was portrayed as weak. Guenevere, however, was supposed to be thought of as perfect by us, from the way the author spoke about her. That's probably the most aggravating part of the book. We're supposed to sympathize and understand when she chooses to cheat on Arthur with Lancelot? Nuh-uh. I hate when authors try to get us to take the side of a female character when there's nothing to even like about the character.
It's not good that the scenes that stick out most in my mind are the sex scenes, which made me wince...especially the giant orgy in the hall. *shudders*
I found the characters to be disgusting. Merlin was portrayed as a crazy, sex-obsessed old man, and Arthur was portrayed as weak. Guenevere, however, was supposed to be thought of as perfect by us, from the way the author spoke about her. That's probably the most aggravating part of the book. We're supposed to sympathize and understand when she chooses to cheat on Arthur with Lancelot? Nuh-uh. I hate when authors try to get us to take the side of a female character when there's nothing to even like about the character.
It's not good that the scenes that stick out most in my mind are the sex scenes, which made me wince...especially the giant orgy in the hall. *shudders*
December 1, 2007
What an awful book. I nearly always finish any book I start, but this one I only made it into a hundred pages. The author has a very clear agenda - that men and religion work hand in hand to suppress women both sexually and politically. I don't mind reading books with a bias if they are well written and make you think, but this novel is pedantic and heavy handed. The characters were stereo-typical and seemed created to make a point. The northern knights who serve men are dirty drinking, loutish, womanizing scoundrels with no redeeming qualities. The knights who serve Guenevere and the queens are clean, well dressed, charming, sensitive, men who will die to protect their queen's right to rule and bed whomever she chooses. The lines are clearly drawn and after a hundred pages, it wasn't worth slogging through the drivel to see if it got any better.
April 26, 2012
I really appreciated the perspective of Guenevere coming from a long line of strong, warrior queens from the Summer County. However, Guenevere didn't live up to her heritage and seemed weak and wishy-washy to me. Being able to hear her thoughts, as she went back and forth between loving Arthur and later Lancelot, only strengthens the wishy-washy aspect to her character. Also, random sexual scenes didn't really add to the progress of the novel and seemed unnecessary. The 'bad' characters were bad from the beginning (Merlin and Morgan) with little hope of character growth or development. Finishing the book was a toil and I'm definitely not interested in reading the other two books in the trilogy. MISTS OF AVALON is still my favorite take on Arthurian legend and I'd recommend that over this version.
February 6, 2014
I love Arthurian legend and I so wanted this to be a proper sweeping epic, a beautiful retelling, fleshing out the ancient stories. This is what you'd hope for from a historian-turned author, isn't it? Based on my admittedly limited readings of the "original" (for want of a better word) texts, this does draw significantly upon the legends. The scene between Lancelot and Guenevere at Dolorous Garde, for example, has clearly been lifted from de Troyes' Lancelot: The Knight of the Cart, which I am reading at the moment (in Four Arthurian Romances).
The problem is that Miles has clearly written this book with a message: male sexuality is inherently abhorrent and only redeemable by female desire. Why else are we treated to so many vile descriptions of male sexuality? From Uther fucking his cow to a man who fantasises about an eleven year old girl to incest (and not just Arthur and Morgana) to Saxons whose preferences extend mainly to gang rape, made all the better if you use knives and suck the blood off afterwards, to Merlin's sado-masochistic spirit sex it goes on and on. This is 500 pages of 'men are evil'. There is also a certain level of 'Christians are evil' which comes under much the same thing - there's this excuse that I imagine the author had in her head: men have done a lot of bad things to women, particularly to conquered women. Likewise, the church has been destructive in some ways, particularly in regards to women's rights. This isn't untrue as per se but it is a mistake to tar a whole group with the same brush. I don't buy her ideology.
As a child I had a particularly strong dislike for Guenevere. I mean, seriously, who cheats on KING ARTHUR?! As an adult I feel a smidgeon more sympathy for her - having a much older husband who was away a lot and falling in love, which happens with no concern for convenience or social rules, but I still don't like her. She is SUCH A SAP, for god's sake. She makes bad decision after bad decision and then sits around moaning about it. Gah. And much as Miles tries to portray her as this image of perfection, she is still a sap, she still dithers and makes terrible decisions and she still betrays King Arthur. Still, I suppose, at least she's a little more likeable than that disgusting old lech Merlin... I know the "original" tellings have terribly shallow characters who are all good or all bad and sure, we expect a little more depth in modern writing but geez louise, hearing about him and his "withered genitals" is much deeper than I ever wanted!
The problem is that Miles has clearly written this book with a message: male sexuality is inherently abhorrent and only redeemable by female desire. Why else are we treated to so many vile descriptions of male sexuality? From Uther fucking his cow to a man who fantasises about an eleven year old girl to incest (and not just Arthur and Morgana) to Saxons whose preferences extend mainly to gang rape, made all the better if you use knives and suck the blood off afterwards, to Merlin's sado-masochistic spirit sex it goes on and on. This is 500 pages of 'men are evil'. There is also a certain level of 'Christians are evil' which comes under much the same thing - there's this excuse that I imagine the author had in her head: men have done a lot of bad things to women, particularly to conquered women. Likewise, the church has been destructive in some ways, particularly in regards to women's rights. This isn't untrue as per se but it is a mistake to tar a whole group with the same brush. I don't buy her ideology.
As a child I had a particularly strong dislike for Guenevere. I mean, seriously, who cheats on KING ARTHUR?! As an adult I feel a smidgeon more sympathy for her - having a much older husband who was away a lot and falling in love, which happens with no concern for convenience or social rules, but I still don't like her. She is SUCH A SAP, for god's sake. She makes bad decision after bad decision and then sits around moaning about it. Gah. And much as Miles tries to portray her as this image of perfection, she is still a sap, she still dithers and makes terrible decisions and she still betrays King Arthur. Still, I suppose, at least she's a little more likeable than that disgusting old lech Merlin... I know the "original" tellings have terribly shallow characters who are all good or all bad and sure, we expect a little more depth in modern writing but geez louise, hearing about him and his "withered genitals" is much deeper than I ever wanted!
October 2, 2011
The only book about Arthurian legend was The Mists Of Avalon, which is one of my favorite books of all-time. I was expecting something very similar to The Mists Of Avalon, so I suppose I was disappointed when this book didn't live up to what I thought it would be.
I didn't like this book as much as I thought I thought I would- in fact, I didn't like it all. While I like the fact that the book focused on Guenevere, I found her to be such an unsympathetic character. It was clear that we were supposed to like her, and that she was this amazing, perfect woman, when, in fact, I thought her to be moody, naive, petty, and at times, desperate.
The characters were so different from what I expected. Merlin was this crazy, sex-obsessed man, and I couldn't figure out if he was a Druid or a Christian. Arthur was weak, somewhat easy to manipulate, and had trouble making a decision without Merlin. The way she painted some of the characters...they're so very different from the actual legends.
The characters fell flat, and were pretty stereotypical/one-dimensional, and the storyline was fairly typical. That being said, there wasn't anything to really hold my interest. Seriously, the most memorable parts of the book were the sex scenes, which made the book a little more smutty than I expected. It's classified as historical fiction, but nothing really felt historical- it seemed more like a really boring romance than anything remotely historical. The pacing was awfully slow and I was really bored reading it.
It gets a 1 out of 5. I just didn't like it, and I'm not at all interested in reading the other 2 books in the trilogy.
I didn't like this book as much as I thought I thought I would- in fact, I didn't like it all. While I like the fact that the book focused on Guenevere, I found her to be such an unsympathetic character. It was clear that we were supposed to like her, and that she was this amazing, perfect woman, when, in fact, I thought her to be moody, naive, petty, and at times, desperate.
The characters were so different from what I expected. Merlin was this crazy, sex-obsessed man, and I couldn't figure out if he was a Druid or a Christian. Arthur was weak, somewhat easy to manipulate, and had trouble making a decision without Merlin. The way she painted some of the characters...they're so very different from the actual legends.
The characters fell flat, and were pretty stereotypical/one-dimensional, and the storyline was fairly typical. That being said, there wasn't anything to really hold my interest. Seriously, the most memorable parts of the book were the sex scenes, which made the book a little more smutty than I expected. It's classified as historical fiction, but nothing really felt historical- it seemed more like a really boring romance than anything remotely historical. The pacing was awfully slow and I was really bored reading it.
It gets a 1 out of 5. I just didn't like it, and I'm not at all interested in reading the other 2 books in the trilogy.
August 12, 2011
And as much as I had really really really wanted to enjoy it, I hate it. I don't think I got past the first 10 chapters.
Plot: Seriously, your standard fare about the Arthur legends. The "difference" here was that it was told from Guenevere's perspective, but there is something in the back of my mind telling me that another author had already done this. Marion Bradley Zimmerman? I think?
Characters: Childish. All of them. I don't mind characters having a childlike quality, but I don't think there was a mature one in the bunch. Petty. Greedy. I get that you want your character to have layers and that people have their good points and their bad points. I didn't see any good points here. Reminded me of the movie Chicago where the only decent character in the movie was the one girl's husband.
Pacing: Slow. I was bored very quickly.
What I disliked the most, though, was the never ending reminders about pagan worship being connected to sexual encounters with a variety of people. Regardless of the historical accuracy, the writer seemed to want to indulge in this particular POV. Let's just say I wasn't interested in the gory details. Although I already know the ending of these stories, knowing what happened with Guenevere and Lancelot I mean, I was disappointed that her adultery seemed to be a foregone conclusion from the start.
Plot: Seriously, your standard fare about the Arthur legends. The "difference" here was that it was told from Guenevere's perspective, but there is something in the back of my mind telling me that another author had already done this. Marion Bradley Zimmerman? I think?
Characters: Childish. All of them. I don't mind characters having a childlike quality, but I don't think there was a mature one in the bunch. Petty. Greedy. I get that you want your character to have layers and that people have their good points and their bad points. I didn't see any good points here. Reminded me of the movie Chicago where the only decent character in the movie was the one girl's husband.
Pacing: Slow. I was bored very quickly.
What I disliked the most, though, was the never ending reminders about pagan worship being connected to sexual encounters with a variety of people. Regardless of the historical accuracy, the writer seemed to want to indulge in this particular POV. Let's just say I wasn't interested in the gory details. Although I already know the ending of these stories, knowing what happened with Guenevere and Lancelot I mean, I was disappointed that her adultery seemed to be a foregone conclusion from the start.
May 28, 2011
I was severely disappointed with this book.
When I started I was excited to read about the Arthurian legend from Guenevere's point of view, but Miles pushed it too far. Yes, Guenevere is supposed to be a strong, independent queen, but it was presented in the worst light possible. I'll go as far as saying Guenevere wasn't even presented as independent, merely as a naive young girl furiously wanting to be. Her desperation, prayers, continuous complaints, and intense mood swings almost pushed me off the edge and more than once I put down the book in pure disgust.
The way the author paints all the different characters made the story superficial and over dramatic, and the storyline itself didn't exactly help lift it. Either there was no climax or there were too many. I hung out until the end desperately waiting for the characters to mature and the plot to evolve, and I have to admit that I found the last 100 pages somewhat interesting, but after almost 400 pages of pure pain, that's not enough.
I'm not sure if I'm going to continue on to the next two books in the series, and if I do, it is simply to have read them all. I don't like starting a trilogy/series without ending it and I might give Miles another chance to better her name, but I'm doubting if I should.
When I started I was excited to read about the Arthurian legend from Guenevere's point of view, but Miles pushed it too far. Yes, Guenevere is supposed to be a strong, independent queen, but it was presented in the worst light possible. I'll go as far as saying Guenevere wasn't even presented as independent, merely as a naive young girl furiously wanting to be. Her desperation, prayers, continuous complaints, and intense mood swings almost pushed me off the edge and more than once I put down the book in pure disgust.
The way the author paints all the different characters made the story superficial and over dramatic, and the storyline itself didn't exactly help lift it. Either there was no climax or there were too many. I hung out until the end desperately waiting for the characters to mature and the plot to evolve, and I have to admit that I found the last 100 pages somewhat interesting, but after almost 400 pages of pure pain, that's not enough.
I'm not sure if I'm going to continue on to the next two books in the series, and if I do, it is simply to have read them all. I don't like starting a trilogy/series without ending it and I might give Miles another chance to better her name, but I'm doubting if I should.
August 30, 2008
Great story. I love different POV books. I was worried it would be overly feminist considering the autor's non-fiction titles, but it was great. Guenevere is a character that's rarely fully fleshed out and I felt like this was a plausible alternative to the traditional tale. Looking forward to the rest of the trilogy.
April 10, 2007
Wonderful twist on the old tale of Guenvevere, King Arthur's queen. She is a queen in her own right..in fact a daughter from a long line of queens of an old realm ruled by. Arthur's rule of Camelot was hard won and marrying Guenevere gave him credence to rule the people of the country.
July 10, 2009
Let's see. Christians hate women and sex and believe life is about suffering. Women should rule the world. I get it. What else? Merlin is a pimp. I can't read anymore.
May 28, 2013
Well, that went downhill fast.
First, let it be known that unlike some other reviews on here, I didn't give this book a low rating because Guenevere has these so called "horrible morals" or has slept around or whatever else people have claimed makes her unlikable. Main characters are allowed to be unlikable if that's what the author has intended. If you've read any "King Arthur", Guenevere does sleep with Lancelot. She is the fall of Camelot (inadvertently). She isn't the kind of person you want to idealize. But she is an interesting character, especially when contrasted with Arthur. Just like people, main characters are often flawed, you don't always identify with them, and hey, guess what, they make bad choices that make others angry at them.
That being said, this really wasn't a great story. I'm starting to wonder if its possible to make an interesting, modern day, King Arthur tale or if we are doomed to the same tale being rewritten with various degrees of suck. The writing itself was bland and the characters were prone to burst into tears every few pages. This, for me at least, left me in a state of irritation. I don't want to know that she began crying. I want to know why. Ultimately, that's what it came down to in the end. I was told the characters actions but not given anything to make me understand their mindset. I wanted to know what they were thinking (especially around the time that Guenevere decided to go insane). The author relied to much on telling a fanfiction about King Arthur than actually making a good Arthurian tale. The dialogue was impersonal, the characters actions were border lining on slapstick, and the story itself had too much of an "and then..." quality for my liking. Also, I'm not ashamed to admit it, but the fact that they used the description "mulberry nipple" may have just made me doubt the authors ability for writing an actual story compared to cheesy soft core porn.
Overall, give this one a pass.
First, let it be known that unlike some other reviews on here, I didn't give this book a low rating because Guenevere has these so called "horrible morals" or has slept around or whatever else people have claimed makes her unlikable. Main characters are allowed to be unlikable if that's what the author has intended. If you've read any "King Arthur", Guenevere does sleep with Lancelot. She is the fall of Camelot (inadvertently). She isn't the kind of person you want to idealize. But she is an interesting character, especially when contrasted with Arthur. Just like people, main characters are often flawed, you don't always identify with them, and hey, guess what, they make bad choices that make others angry at them.
That being said, this really wasn't a great story. I'm starting to wonder if its possible to make an interesting, modern day, King Arthur tale or if we are doomed to the same tale being rewritten with various degrees of suck. The writing itself was bland and the characters were prone to burst into tears every few pages. This, for me at least, left me in a state of irritation. I don't want to know that she began crying. I want to know why. Ultimately, that's what it came down to in the end. I was told the characters actions but not given anything to make me understand their mindset. I wanted to know what they were thinking (especially around the time that Guenevere decided to go insane). The author relied to much on telling a fanfiction about King Arthur than actually making a good Arthurian tale. The dialogue was impersonal, the characters actions were border lining on slapstick, and the story itself had too much of an "and then..." quality for my liking. Also, I'm not ashamed to admit it, but the fact that they used the description "mulberry nipple" may have just made me doubt the authors ability for writing an actual story compared to cheesy soft core porn.
Overall, give this one a pass.
May 12, 2018
Honestamente, no pude terminarlo. Leí un veinte por ciento del libro y me detuve en seco fastidiada e indispuesta a seguir leyendo. Me fascina la leyenda artúrica, ya sean libros, películas, arte, música... yo encantada lo consumo todo como golosinas, pero esto fue como probar el nuevo sabor de una marca que te gusta mucho para darte cuenta de que no sólo no te encanta, sino que, sorprendentemente, te desagrada y te dan ganas de escupirlo. Bueno, pues eso hice.
Merlín es un pervertido, Arturo es un pelele, Ginebra por alguna razón en esta historia es la pagana (cuando siempre ha representado los valores cristianos, que al casarse con el heredero de un trono pagano se une la fe antigua y la nueva en una paz ejemplar y que trasciende de las diferencias culturales -que es uno de los más fuertes mensajes de la leyenda-), y no sólo pagana, sino de un linaje matriarcal de La Diosa. Además, la autora le da Avalón a Ginebra, abofeteando el mito Galés que origina la historia que está destazando a cuchilladas.
Los personajes son blancos o negros, los malos son muy malos, masculinos, perversos, y obsesionados con el sexo (que es algo malo, claro), y los buenos son todo blanco y oro, prístinos y justos y, curiosamente, femeninos. Esta dicotomía entre lo bueno y lo malo, lo blanco y lo negro, lo cristiano y lo pagano, el matriarcado y el patriarcado huele ya mal de lo pasado que está, y esta historia sólo añade más a ello.
Está MUY (subrayo) bien escrita, la autora tiene un estilo limpio, la historia está contada desde muchas perspectivas (a veces demasiadas, brinca de cabeza en cabeza de manera casi indiscriminada), y el estilo es admirable... pero me rehúso a que la autora meta a martillazos su agenda política en una leyenda preciosa y que me eche a perder a los personajes.
NO la recomiendo a quien ame Las Nieblas de Avalón, esta es algo así como la historia opuesta.
Merlín es un pervertido, Arturo es un pelele, Ginebra por alguna razón en esta historia es la pagana (cuando siempre ha representado los valores cristianos, que al casarse con el heredero de un trono pagano se une la fe antigua y la nueva en una paz ejemplar y que trasciende de las diferencias culturales -que es uno de los más fuertes mensajes de la leyenda-), y no sólo pagana, sino de un linaje matriarcal de La Diosa. Además, la autora le da Avalón a Ginebra, abofeteando el mito Galés que origina la historia que está destazando a cuchilladas.
Los personajes son blancos o negros, los malos son muy malos, masculinos, perversos, y obsesionados con el sexo (que es algo malo, claro), y los buenos son todo blanco y oro, prístinos y justos y, curiosamente, femeninos. Esta dicotomía entre lo bueno y lo malo, lo blanco y lo negro, lo cristiano y lo pagano, el matriarcado y el patriarcado huele ya mal de lo pasado que está, y esta historia sólo añade más a ello.
Está MUY (subrayo) bien escrita, la autora tiene un estilo limpio, la historia está contada desde muchas perspectivas (a veces demasiadas, brinca de cabeza en cabeza de manera casi indiscriminada), y el estilo es admirable... pero me rehúso a que la autora meta a martillazos su agenda política en una leyenda preciosa y que me eche a perder a los personajes.
NO la recomiendo a quien ame Las Nieblas de Avalón, esta es algo así como la historia opuesta.
October 13, 2009
i think there are better Authurian legend books out there. This is a book about redemption & forgiveness set in the time of King Authur. The familiar characters are probably not portrayed as you expect. Merlin is a spiteful, vengeful, sex crazed old man. Not wise at all. So is he a Druid? A Christian? I'm not sure. Authur is a puppet of Merlin. He can't make a decision w/o him. And the knights & the rules of chivalry. Were the knights of this time really like this? I always pictured the knights as mercenaries. Guns for hire not concerned about who is sleeping w/ who. Guenevere is from a long line of warrior queens but she is nothing w/o her knights. Sometimes she comes accross as helpless & needy. Boo hoo. Guenevere's religion is one of convience to me. She keeps it when she feels like it or when she wants something from the goddess. OF course a lot of us are like that. We only speak to God when we are is crisis mode.
June 23, 2012
I really thought I was going to enjoy this book. Marion Zimmer Bradley obviously set the bar too high for me in terms of Arthurian novels, and this novel fell far, far short. The novel is told from Guenevere’s point of view but the narration is stilted and everything felt very forced. The novel jumped randomly forward in time – for example Guenevere and Arthur have a son named Amir, and in the next chapter he’s seven years old and then is killed. I almost stopped reading this just because the childish characters and poor quality of the narration was aggravating but I persevered until the end. (I would have liked to have seen more "showing" and less "telling" on the emotional front with the characters.) Definitely an original take on the tale of Camelot, but not one I particularly enjoyed.
July 31, 2007
This was on the good side of pretty okay. Again, Gwen comes off much better here than she does usually, since these books are mostly from her point of view. The writing is pretty good and very lovely. Very descriptive. The characters are very realistic and she does a great job of bringing you into the story. I was really pleasantly surprised by this book. I mean, it's still middle brow, comforting fiction, but its a pretty good example of it. I wasn't motivated to read the other ones, somehow, but that doesn't speak less of this one. It's not fantastic, but it's good. I know a few other girls who were obsessed with these things, so perhaps my taste is failing me. A very good curl up on the couch on a lazy day and indulge yourself book. Bring the chocolate, ladies.
May 8, 2009
This book was so slow in the beginning--- and awkwardly written. I was ready to put it down, but I love stories about King Arthur, so I stuck with it. Nothing thrilling. Nothing new. I would not recommend the book unless you enjoy the story.
October 15, 2014
Decided to give up on this. Whilst I don't mind an alternative take on a legend, this book had unrecognisable characters: Guenevere the petulant teenager, Merlin the dirty old man.
May 13, 2018
Una bonita historia la de la reina Ginebra.
Sigue muy bien la estela de las leyendas artúricas.
Sigue muy bien la estela de las leyendas artúricas.
March 14, 2020
I guess I was expecting a novel portraing the arthurian tales added a modern and feminist twist that could bring a fresh perspective to the old loved stories. And yet again the true villain is a woman, who's been abused by the men in her life, who had to survive in a convent, being again and again abused by the christian faith. I felt sorry (and grew some kind of sympathy) for Morgan and to be honest I wished Arthur would just die because of her.
The beginning fooled me into thinking I would finally see Guinevere's character from a different point of view, but she is just like the rest of the arthurian novels, plus the old Mother faith.
The beginning fooled me into thinking I would finally see Guinevere's character from a different point of view, but she is just like the rest of the arthurian novels, plus the old Mother faith.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 26, 2024
A quick read and not really a terrible read for the most part. While I appreciated a bit of a different spin on a familiar tale, this book was a longer than it needed to be. I'm not really sure what is going to be stretched out in two following books.
The characters fall flat. Arthur has that dumb jock thing going for him and Guenevere is the cheerleader who ties her wagon to his successes and failures. The author wants you to see Guenevere as some kind of powerful queen and we get none of that. Morgan played such a significant role in many of the events of the book but yet we see so little of that here. If there needed to be more of anything, there needed to be more Morgan. If you are familiar with the lore of Arthur you understand her motivations a little bit. In this instance, that's hardly enough to give the reader a real understanding of Morgan's motives.
The characters fall flat. Arthur has that dumb jock thing going for him and Guenevere is the cheerleader who ties her wagon to his successes and failures. The author wants you to see Guenevere as some kind of powerful queen and we get none of that. Morgan played such a significant role in many of the events of the book but yet we see so little of that here. If there needed to be more of anything, there needed to be more Morgan. If you are familiar with the lore of Arthur you understand her motivations a little bit. In this instance, that's hardly enough to give the reader a real understanding of Morgan's motives.
February 10, 2026
Was a dnf for me. The writing was very dry and the characters were lacking. Overall, very boring.
November 20, 2012
I had this book for a long time on my TBR shelves but I finally read it during Plum's What to Read in Oct. which was folk and fairy tales. Actually I wasn't sure if the Arthur legends had any basis in reality so I googled it and found that historians don't know either; they can only tell you about how long the legend has been around and guess at its origins. Fascinating really as the legend is so popular and ubiquitous.
So as to the book itself: Not bad. I did get sick of certain words like "otherwordly" and phrases such as "Oh, my love". Probably the best writing in the book had to do with that witch Morgan and, even creepier, her son Mordred. That dream that the king has toward the end of the book rivals Neal Gaiman's stories. Now why Arthur and Guenevere were so completely DENSE when it came to recognizing evil is a mystery. The idea must be that good and innocence only see good in others, don't anticipate jealousy, hatred, twistedness and evil intentions. Well, their mistake! Now you would think that Merlin, with all his second sight and everything, would have been able to do a better job of protecting Arthur and his family, but it is all kind of explained by Merlin's wrong in helping Uther with Queen Igraine. That might cloud anyone's vision.
Also, the druid religion kind of gets whitewashed until we deal with Malgaunt's druid and that makes it seem like just one evil druid. Oh, not so. Druid's practiced human sacrifice. But then every religion in this book is enough to make a person feel ill. Even the Goddess religion of love when you think about how that connected with the Druid religion, at least per this book, is another incarnation of evil. I've never researched Goddess religion. Also not sure about the timeline with this book. "Arthur" is first mentioned in the 600's but the legend of King Arthur starts about 400 years later. Nobody is sure so the whole story can be made up and romanticized.
And so the legend of King Arthur lives on.
This book is the first in a series. Undoubtedly Morgan and Mordred are going to show up again.
January 2, 2018
I could barely make it through to the end of this book, but I forced myself. This is a bizarre twist on the classic King Arthur tale, and none of it was classic. I always thought Guenevere was an intelligent, rational leader. Not so in this book. She starts out in a frenzy when her mother dies, and her uncle tries to take over her thrown. Apparently, in this story, Guenevere is already living in Camelot, a pagan land where women rule and have “thigh-freedom” (the author’s words, not mine) to sleep with any man they wish. While Guenevere is standing there in her stupidity with her uncle trying to take over, Arthur shows up from who knows where and serves as her champion. He beats the uncle, and stupid Gwen tells Arthur to spare his life. Um, okay, and you don’t think he is going to come back and try to steal the throne again? Stupid Gwen. So they go back to Caerleon where Arthur has his throne. Wait a minute, I thought he was the king of Camelot? Not so in this bizarre story. Also, the knights of the round table was an idea from the pagan women, not Arthur. While in Camelot, Arthur sees it and thinks, oh, that’s a good idea. But they never really talk about him incorporating that. What? This is not the story I grew up with. I could go on and on, but I won’t. I already invested too much into this book as it is. Suffice it to say, this is a weird twist of the King Arthur tales. Arthur is a weak fool who can’t really make his own decisions. Guenevere is an immature idiot who stands around while others make decisions. Then she cries about it. Example of her immaturity – she is pining away for Lancelot. Pages and pages of her talking to her maid about why she hasn’t heard from him and how much she wants to see him. He finally tells her to meet him and she says no. Kind of reminds me of dumb high school behavior. And at this point in her life she’s in her thirties. Ok, I’m done…there are three books in this series, but I will not put myself through the torture of the other two.
September 1, 2016
As someone who only knows the very basic King Arthur story (sword in stone, Guevenere (why is it spelled this way?) and Lancelot fall in love, Merlin, Knights of the Round Table) I was very excited to read an Arthurian tale with a woman's perspective of events (Queen Guevenere) since the Arthurian tales are male-centric and the woman are depicted as evil (Morgana) and unfaithful (Guevenere) which by the way are Christian labels, which these same labels are not applied to the male characters even though the male characters perform evil deeds. I liked that the book dabbed in the Druid religion, which is Guevenere's religion which aids the reader to see different perspectives of the "morality" what is construed as a sin and adultery in Christian religion is seen as a woman's right bestowed by the Goddess for all women and respected by the men of said religion. It was surprising to read King Arthur as a weak and dependent person when for centuries he has been hailed as brave, noble and in the height of his rein the most noble of kings. Since this is Guevenere's point of view the reader misses out on Lancelot's (who by the way is the Queen's knight and not the King's)relationship with the King, so when Guevenere and Lancelot consummate their love, I did not understand why the other knights were upset given that Lancelot is also of the Druid religion and the known knowledge that it is the right and obligation of the Queen of the Summer Country must have a champion every few years as part of their pact with the land and the ways of the Goddess. All in all, I enjoyed the book, found the romance haunting, and most importantly have awaken my curiosity to all things Arthurian.
December 20, 2009
In Guenevere, Queen of the Summer Country by Rosalind Miles we about the old Author legend from the viewpoint of Princess (Queen) Guenevere. More depth is given in this story then normal in stories about Arthur to Guenevere and her mother's kingdom.
There were a few things I did enjoy about this book. When viewed at as a fantasy novel there were all the ingredients that make a good one. Light magic and dark magic. Twists and turns, betrayals and true love. It was all there and the writing was good enough so that it flowed together easily.
Now, what I didn't enjoy about the book. Instead of being a fascinating novel, the author felt the need to delve into harlequin-type descriptions in order to convey the depth of the love Lancelot and Guenevere had for one another. It made me take this book and the story held within it quite a bit less seriously.
Miles description of Merlin and the relationship he had with Arthur was a believable one. I never have bought into the myth that he was a good man and only looking out for Arthur's best interests and the story told here is a good counterpoint to the other stories of Merlin.
Overall, a solid three stars for this book. It wasn't horrible, it didn't make me want to put it down - it just wasn't what I was hoping for.
There were a few things I did enjoy about this book. When viewed at as a fantasy novel there were all the ingredients that make a good one. Light magic and dark magic. Twists and turns, betrayals and true love. It was all there and the writing was good enough so that it flowed together easily.
Now, what I didn't enjoy about the book. Instead of being a fascinating novel, the author felt the need to delve into harlequin-type descriptions in order to convey the depth of the love Lancelot and Guenevere had for one another. It made me take this book and the story held within it quite a bit less seriously.
Miles description of Merlin and the relationship he had with Arthur was a believable one. I never have bought into the myth that he was a good man and only looking out for Arthur's best interests and the story told here is a good counterpoint to the other stories of Merlin.
Overall, a solid three stars for this book. It wasn't horrible, it didn't make me want to put it down - it just wasn't what I was hoping for.
April 17, 2010
Though I liked parts of it, it is an Arthurian legend after all, there is enough that bothers me about the book to stop me from continuing the series. Her writing style itself isn’t bad, but most of the characters are just entirely too flat to care about. The crazies are just too crazy, the zealous too zealous, the pathetic too pathetic. It drove me crazy, she really pushes it out there too, like, it isn’t just intricacies in their characters that make them a little annoying, but huge sweeping generalizations and absurd bursts of emotional weaknesses. Things like that. Arthur is just a whiny little bitch, it’s the only way to put it. And if I had to read the awkward phrase of ‘thigh friendship’ I would have just throw the book down in the middle. And then Lancelot comes along and the thing starts to morph into a trashy romance novel. This author has a PhD for gods sake! I’ll move towards something else.
November 7, 2009
If you think you know the story of Camelot, think again! Rosalind Miles will have your head spinning as she weaves her own tale of love and betrayal. Who is right? Who is wrong? Perhaps Guenevere is not so innocent, Lancelot not so shallow, and Arthur not so saintly as we have let ourselves believe. Perhaps the villainess is not the one The Mists of Avalon has proposed, but another whose evil is rooted in her dark and damaging past. Perhaps this legend's true tragedy lies in its utter lack of villains and heroes: the single "tragic flaw" that binds all of Mile's characters together is nothing more or less than their humanity.
August 5, 2014
Well, only made it halfway through. Although the concept was cool with Gwen being the pagan instead of her usual role as Christian, and the evil uncle, I just didn't like the writing style. It took forever for anything to happen, and the overuse of the exclamation point really got to me. Merlin should not be yelling all the time!!!!! So there. I also didn't like the use of italics for everyone's thoughts and the changing of perspective got to me. It wasn't even every other chapter from a different point of view, but sometimes every other paragraph. Arthurian legend or no, I had to give up.
January 23, 2019
Le doy la mayor puntuación no porque sea un libro perfecto (tiene un montón de fallos, estoy segura) si no porque leí esta saga por primera vez siendo adolescente y me ofreció refugio y consuelo en aquella época turbulenta. Y hoy día, que tengo casi treinta, lo sigue haciendo. Hay libros de nuestro pasado que es bueno releer con ojo crítico y analizar detenidamente, pero prefiero conservar éste en el limbo de las fantasías intocables, donde siempre pueda devolverme a Avalón, mi lugar seguro. No me lo tengan en cuenta.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 254 reviews